Did you hear his comment about ” not letting religion act as a wedge in government?” I about had a stroke. Did I even get that quote right?

Gabriel

I find this verfy interesting. I hope that Senator Clinton will wholeheartedly support Obama. She could damage the party and help put McCain in the White House. I just watched Terry McCaulife on The Daily Show with John Stewart. McCaulife is still claiming that Clinton will be the nominee. That is not a good sign.

I just feel I need to share this. Today, I stood up infront of about 35 women, and while holding my 1 year old, pointed my finger at two horrible women in my organization, and loudly said ” These two women have spread lies and rumors about me for the simple fact….. that I don’t believe in God.” ( They are a Staunch Catholic and a Protestant of some kind).

Holy crap I thought everyone was going to black out on me. No one did though. I think they were all too shocked I would do that.

Evil women then denied it. Later, they sent about 50 people, including myself, an email, telling everyone they were leaving the org. because, I, and I quote ” spout off about my devil worship while holding my baby.”

I have never done anything so brave in my entire life. I outted myself to my community. I need a little amen. And I so so so want to write back and say, ” Get it right – I wasn’t holding my baby, I was eating my baby”. But I didn’t.

Elsin Ann Perry

If Obama (YAY!!! HOORAY!!!) chose Wesley Clark to be his running mate, McBush would be able to say nothing about Barack’s lack of foreign affairs knowledge.

Holy crap, Stacy. That’s incredibly courageous of you. Sounds like you made the right move, though…

Shawn

I have been reading a lot of people saying there comming out as atheists in there community. And how there getting pegged as devil worshipers like Stacy.

I live in Canada, in a small mostly catholic town, and have been raised an atheist. The majority of my friends are atheists, and its no surprise to anyone. I have also never been called a devil worshiper.

I’m thrilled about Obama too. Now the question is whether Clinton will be able to swallow her ego and do what’s best for her party and the country, or whether she will try to bring the whole ship down with her.

Frankly, I’m so disgusted with her at this point that I’m actually scared to death that Obama will actually choose her for VP. Anyone would be better than her. Bill Richardson would be a great choice. So would John Edwards.

Gabriel

You have a bigger set of balls than I do Stacy. I am way to scared to let anyone but my closet friends and family know I am an atheist. I just don’t have the courage to let my general community know.

What scares me the most though is the thought of having that racist, angry woman Michelle Obama as our first lady. It’s ironic that someone who preaches about unity and change could marry a woman so bitter and angry at white people.

I don’t think Obama is Lincoln, or even Kennedy. (I’m not even sure that Kennedy was Kennedy, if you know what I mean.) And I think a lot of the people who are seeing him that way are in for a big disillusionment when he becomes Prez.

But I will confess that, when I watched his speech tonight, I was moved and stirred. And for the first time in a while, I was a little bit proud to be an American. (I’ll be a lot more proud when he wins in November.)

Darryl

I support Obama because of his policies, but if he becomes President he will face great opposition. If our people do not rise to our challenges and put pressure upon Congress there is little that he can do. Poor McCain, too little too late. G. H. W. Bush must be so depressed about how W. turned out–what a loser. six more months and our national nightmare will be over.

Danny

Crazy how so many people perceive Obama to be some sort of hero, completely immune to the political process. All politicians are the same, to believe otherwise is naive…

Anyway, I was just at San Diego’s election central where I got to watch poll results tell the amazing story of progressives getting beaten by moderate Democrats in primary after primary after primary. The House of Representatives lost out on three potential congresspeople who could have helped lead our country out of funding the war that has become the human rights fiasco we all pay taxes to support.

The only difference I see between now and this time next year is that the 100000+ American troops illegally occupying Iraq will be doing so under a different commander-in-chief. I’m supposed to be $%&#ing excited about that? Why the frak should I?

The Unbrainwashed

cautious:

I’m basing my assertion of Michelle’s racism on her undergraduate thesis (a paper full of black separatist perspectives), her church, her “Civil Rights” work, her infamous line about never being proud of America (with a clear implication of race embedded in it), and just her overall demeanor is of the stereotypical “angry black woman.” I’ve also heard interviews with her and her viewpoints on race are so antiquated and bitter. She talks about being black first, above all else and as if being black consumes her entire being. The woman clearly has something against white America, despite being essentially let into Princeton and Harvard Law on the sole basis of her blackness.

The Unbrainwashed: First of. let me state that I am white. However, I have firsthand accounts from nearly all of my black friends of blatant racism against them. I’m not agreeing with your assessment of Michelle Obama, but if she were an “Angry Black Woman” I think she just might have a few good reasons to be. As a nation we have come a long way on the surface, but racism is still deeply seated in many.

Personally, I’m excited about Obama, but I will be nervous until we have the next election.

I figured I’d vote for however got the nod for the Dems, but I’m not sure I can vote for Obama after seeing that picture. That is just creeeeeeeepy, Hemant.

Jeff Satterley

I would love to see Bill Richardson become Obama’s VP. His foreign relations experience would absolutely benefit Obama’s administration. I don’t know if that choice would get him the most votes, but I think he is the best man for the job.

Am I the only one who is incredibly frightened by the prospect of Obama being president? I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that most atheists skewed towards Libertarian politics, and let’s face it, Obama is about as un-libertarian as you can get. He’s a socialist. He’s no better than a common thief who wants to steal my money at the point of a gun to give to others.

It’s important to me that a candidate protects my religious view point, but it’s even more important that his ultimate goal isn’t to create some communist regime (like Obama’s influential advisor’s would).

TXatheist

I’m happy that it’s a first but until he’s in the White House I ain’t celebrating anything. If BO does win I can’t wait to see Carlos Mencia doing jokes about racism. (in a good way)

I think that it is a good sign overall for America that Obama can get nominated. It should, but won’t be, the final nail in the coffin of the idea that this is a racist nation. It used to be and took a while but things have changed. We are in a very exclusive club of societies that of its own internal will broke slavery and segregation and affords legal protection to all. Yes there are problems and the government has gotten way out of control but it has changed. Individuals are still racist and cruel and stupid but it is not institutionalized. (Now if we can just get the country to include sexual orientation in the same fold as race…)
I am not excited about Obama, I think that he is probably a good person but his policies are out of sync with human nature. You cannot govern from good intentions alone. Two years in the white house and we will see a massive influx of republicans in the congress and we will be back to complete deadlock and an ever growing, ever spending government.

Of course, it would be hard to for him to be worse than Bush… very hard.

As for the fear of Hillary as VP, be afraid. I have been predicting (and I have not suspended this prediction yet even though my friends are tired of hearing it) since the first time I saw Obama speak as a senator that the 08 Dem ticket would be Clinton and Obama. I saw him as VP because I didn’t think he had the stones to run this early. If the the ticket is Obama/Clinton he better watch his back. Her avarice for the top job could put Pelosi in the White house if you catch my drift.

Spurs Fan

If Obama (YAY!!! HOORAY!!!) chose Wesley Clark to be his running mate, McBush would be able to say nothing about Barack’s lack of foreign affairs knowledge.

I’m not so sure this is a good idea. If you’re basing your VP pick on foreign affairs knowledge and military experience, then the Dems should have won in 2004. After all, we had John “actually served in a war” Kerry and George Bush, and the Dems still lost. The Democrats are not seen as the party of national security, despite seemingly having more elected officials than the GOP who actually served in the military, so let’s just give that horse away. Let’s focus on the things people think we are better at like the economy and equal rights.

I’m an Obama supporter who actually has little problem with Hillary. If you want to win the election, those two on the same ticket sounds like a good idea to me. Both candidates renergized the party during the last few months and if everyone who voted for them came out, all of the racism and sexism put together still wouldn’t win. Sure most white males might not vote for them, but who would need Billy Bob Whitey’s votes? Not us.

John

My comments section is going crazy and posting things in a weird order. I take back my little rant that used to be in this comment. 🙂

cautious

the unbrainwashed,

Well, at the least I’m glad you’re basing your beliefs on more than one data point.

I’m sorry that I’ve insulted someone so close to your sacred cow.

I think you’re assuming that Obama is my sacred cow. This would be a wrong assumption.

spurs fan,

The Democrats are not seen as the party of national security, despite seemingly having more elected officials than the GOP who actually served in the military, so let’s just give that horse away.

It’s quite intriguing when you run into someone who thinks that somehow, someway, the Bush presidency has prevented another 9/11, and thus he’s been doing a great job on national security. Under that logic, every other president beforehand must have been better than Bush at national security, because they prevented the first 9/11 from happening. …somehow, to some voters, this point doesn’t make it through.

So, yeah, I think that Americans who didn’t actually suffer any personal loss from 9/11, but who unquestionably think that the GOP somehow saved the day, are Americans who are not going to vote for anyone from another party. Oh no.

andyinsdca

No. I have no support for a guy who sits in the pew of a church for 20 years that features preachers that spew racism and black liberation theory. Add to that he’s just a run of the mill empty-suit leftist and there’s nothing there to support.

I watched Barack Obama’s speech announcing that he won the Democratic nomination. For years, I thought I was simply too cynical to really stand behind a candidate. I figured they were all liars and cheats. Perhaps Barack is too. But he inspires me, and he fills me with the hope that the last 16 years of turbulence is over; that he wont scandalize and embarrass us; that he wont degrade us and make us the problem in the world; and, that he will continue to act, as he has acted thus far, with a dignity and grace unprecedented in the current political climate. So, yes, I’m very happy he won.

I would have gone further and called them dirty, dirty whores! You and no one else needs to put up with that shit. You should post their e-mail addresses here and let any one that wants to e-mail the dirty bitches and tell them what they think of them.

Polly

Given the choice of “socialist” Obama (and no one in the USA has really seen socialism) or John “Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!” McCain, our odds of avoiding a total disaster on a global scale are better if we keep the greater warmonger out of the Whitehouse.

The Republicans hand out taxpayer dollars and run up debt like it’s going out of style. The money goes to “private” industries that make up the war machine, giving new meaning to the phrase, “Billions and Billions.” They are NOT conservative and can spend like the best socialists. Not to mention the blatant immorality of the war of conquest they wish to continue throughout the Middle East and probably South America and Asia as well. Oh, and Western Europe is to become a stage for a future offensive against…whom? Russia, the Middle East? As Bush tries to re-ignite an arms race by reviving missile defense in Europe, antagonizing Russia.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the democrats, including BO, are going to be much different, as Pelosi and her gang have shown. What happened to an orderly withdrawl from Iraq? Is this misadventure really working out so well that we can’t AFFORD to leave?

SSDD. Why not support someone who isn’t beholden to elite donors whose interests conflict with the other 99% of Americans? To Hell with the major parties, they’ve been bought and paid for by someone else, already.

cautious

Why not support someone who isn’t beholden to elite donors whose interests conflict with the other 99% of Americans?

Because our country’s political structures have been engineered to support a two-party system, and thus people are forced to choose between Dems and Reps, when neither party has respect for anything besides money and power.

Spurs Fan

It’s quite intriguing when you run into someone who thinks that somehow, someway, the Bush presidency has prevented another 9/11, and thus he’s been doing a great job on national security.

That is intriguing. But I want to make clear that I do not agree with it. My point was that Obama shouldn’t pick his VP based on how much military experience he/she has or how “tough” they are on national security. The Dems have tried that in the past, and it has not worked. I actually think that in many ways, they have been better on defense than the GOP, but the Republicans will win if that’s the forefront issue. Obama should pick Hillary (thus shoring up the base and winning the independents he would get while sacrificing any white, conservative male who may have supported him if had he picked Wes Clark, etc.), heal the “wounds” of the party, and march on to history.

Under that logic, every other president beforehand must have been better than Bush at national security, because they prevented the first 9/11 from happening. …somehow, to some voters, this point doesn’t make it through.

Agreed.

He’s a socialist.

First off, so what? What is this, the red scare of the 1950’s? So don’t vote for him. Secondly, this is just not factually true. I’ve seen nothing in Senator Obama’s platform about abolishing the free market, single-payer health care, etc. You could say he’s more socialist than McCain, but compare him to even Europe’s conservative parties and he comes nowhere close to the label. I have a feeling the folks of the actual Socialist Party (http://www.sp-usa.org/) would disagree that Obama satisfies their requirements. In fact, the only similarity is that their candidate also has African ancestry. Ask Ralph Nader if he thinks Obama is a socialist.

but it’s even more important that his ultimate goal isn’t to create some communist regime (like Obama’s influential advisor’s would).

Citation? Evidence? Which advisor(s) are you speaking of?

Let’s keep Joe McCarthy in the history books.

Polly I think we cross-posted. Great points! Except…

“Unfortunately, I don’t think the democrats, including BO, are going to be much different, as Pelosi and her gang have shown. What happened to an orderly withdrawl from Iraq? Is this misadventure really working out so well that we can’t AFFORD to leave?”

Things might move slower than you’d like, but you have to remember that Pelosi and Co were somewhat prohibited by a Republican President. Sure I think they could have shown more courage, but I’m pretty sure a Dem-majority congress would act differently with Obama as President.

Ubi Dubium

Well, I’ve been working on reading Obama’s most recent book. There is a wonderful passage in it:

“…the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation, we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers”

Wow. Tolerance for nonbelievers. And he actually seems to listen to people. And he thinks. And supports the separation of church and state. I don’t think us heathens and heretics are likely to find a more sympathetic candidate, at least not one who would actually have a “prayer” of being elected. I just hope Hillary doesn’t mess it up for us. If the Democrats can’t unite, we’ll be condemning ourselves to four years of McBush.

Oh, and Stacy –
RAmen, and I wish I had your guts.

Polly

cautious said:

Because our country’s political structures have been engineered to support a two-party system, and thus people are forced to choose between Dems and Reps,

I don’t see any way out of it except for people to stop giving in to the media glitz of slick pol’s. When Americans wake up and start exercising those atrophied democratic muscles and make a choice, not just a selection, we’ll see a change. Hopefully, the gross abuses of the last 8 years will be enough to foment a democratic revolution.

Spurs Fan,

I hope I’m just pessimistic. I did expect a little more backbone considering how unpopular the war is. The fact that I didn’t see it and that BO is still trying to talk tough about Iran and cozying up to a certain warmongering Lobby group, leads me to believe war is endemic to both parties.

What is this, the red scare of the 1950’s?

Exactly! Isn’t it amazing what spooks the population? An extra $50/mo. to a single mother has some people heading for the hills, but a few $100billion in corporate welfare for “defense” is honky dory. Jebus X, this country’s priotities are topsy turvy.

cautious

spurs fan,

I gotcha on your point: some political issues are so …locked-in? to a particular demographic that trying to fight for votes on those issues is a waste of time and money. I really wish that the natural security / Al-Qaeda issue wasn’t one of these issues that Democrats are forced to concede: they already gave up on gun control in the 1990’s. What’s next, are they going to give up on the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus?

(reads news from last 7 years)

Oh. Guess the Democrats can run on a platform of “we will try to eventually get health insurance for everyone (or maybe just everyone who’s not an adult) before the year 2100, by which time we will have maybe withdrawn from Iraq”

One thing I gotta say about:

Things might move slower than you’d like, but you have to remember that Pelosi and Co were somewhat prohibited by a Republican President.

Is that if the President was the only problem, then he could have been impeached and removed from office. …except that Pelosi, when running in 2006, made it abundantly clear that impeachment was “off the table”.

…basically, the Executive Branch, in post-WWII America, has so radically increased its powers that Congress has been reduced to begging. I abhor Newt Gingerich and the type of politics he ran, but at least when he was Speaker he was willing to push through legislation without being scared of the president.

Anyway, I was just at San Diego’s election central where I got to watch poll results tell the amazing story of progressives getting beaten by moderate Democrats in primary after primary after primary.

This is true. A good progressive Democrat friend of mine was beat by under 400 votes by a blue-dog Democrat here in Dennis Hastert’s old district. The blue-dog guy won the special election a few months ago, and I’d rather have him than the Republican, but even still, it’s sad that the true progressive didn’t make it past the primary.

Things might move slower than you’d like, but you have to remember that Pelosi and Co were somewhat prohibited by a Republican President. Sure I think they could have shown more courage,

If they had shown any “courage” I might have been impressed. Since Bush started taking us to hell in a bucket, all the Dems have done is say they aren’t Bush. It was Kerry’s only postion in the last election and it didn’t work. In 2006 Dems got elected because the puclic was fed up with Bush and the Reps and they did nothing of substance.

but I’m pretty sure a Dem-majority congress would act differently with Obama as President.

Well then screw them. What is the point of that branch of the goverment if they just roll over for whoever is president?

Am I the only one who is incredibly frightened by the prospect of Obama being president? I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that most atheists skewed towards Libertarian politics, and let’s face it, Obama is about as un-libertarian as you can get. He’s a socialist. He’s no better than a common thief who wants to steal my money at the point of a gun to give to others.

Why is it that most Libertarians I meet, whether in real life or online, always come across as borderline paranoid?

andyinsdca

The San Diego election results should not be used to prove or disprove anything. The turnout was so ridiculously low that they don’t prove anything.

cautious

Polly,

I agree with your points, but think you might be overly-optimistic about the willingness of voters to foment a democratic revolution.

Unless Fomenting a Democratic Revolution is the name of a hit single available on iTunes and off walmart.com.

We shouldn’t be surprised that corporations run political parties when they already run everything else in our daily lives. Heck, even the environmentalist/conservationist movement has been incorporated into corporatism: buy this product, it’s recycled! This table is made by indigenous peoples! This caviar has been organically raised! The more you spend, the more you save…the planet!

Warfare will continue to be an American value that politicians will always be in favor of up until the point when warfare becomes non-profitable.

cautious

Mike,

Why is it that most Libertarians I meet, whether in real life or online, always come across as borderline paranoid?

They really are paranoid, because (in their minds) the government is crushing their freedom. I mean, except in cases where they don’t think that freedom is important, in which case, it’s up to the states to decide.

Who I want to meet: a Ron Paul supporter who is pro-choice who can give me a legitimate reason why different states in one country should define a human being differently. Arguing that “we’re a republic, not a democracy” over and over again is not a reason; it’s a mantra.

cautious

The San Diego election results should not be used to prove or disprove anything. The turnout was so ridiculously low that they don’t prove anything.

How much does turnout have to be in order to prove something? I hear that Iraqi elections used to have 100% turn-out…

I’m not using the local races to prove or disprove anything; I was just illustrating a case in which three primary races for a Congressional seat had a Progressive Democrats of America endorsed candidate, and a candidate who did not have that endorsement. All three of the PDA candidates lost, and thus three more potential voices in Congress saying no to war funding have been silenced.

Also note that San Diego is fairly conservative, with a HUGE military population, so Progressive-anything is likely to go down in flames.

As a partial counter-balance against that, we also have a large LGBT population, supposedly larger (relatively) than that of LA. So…yeah, this city has an odd mish-mash of political populations.

andyinsdca

Also note that San Diego is fairly conservative, with a HUGE military population, so Progressive-anything is likely to go down in flames.

I just feel I need to share this. Today, I stood up infront of about 35 women, and while holding my 1 year old, pointed my finger at two horrible women in my organization, and loudly said ” These two women have spread lies and rumors about me for the simple fact….. that I don’t believe in God.” ( They are a Staunch Catholic and a Protestant of some kind).

Holy crap I thought everyone was going to black out on me. No one did though. I think they were all too shocked I would do that.

Evil women then denied it. Later, they sent about 50 people, including myself, an email, telling everyone they were leaving the org. because, I, and I quote ” spout off about my devil worship while holding my baby.”

I have never done anything so brave in my entire life. I outted myself to my community. I need a little amen. And I so so so want to write back and say, ” Get it right – I wasn’t holding my baby, I was eating my baby”. But I didn’t.

Wow Stacy! Congrats!!!!

About the nominee…I’m hesitant to be excited. This whole Bush fiasco has made me wary.

Spurs Fan

An extra $50/mo. to a single mother has some people heading for the hills, but a few $100billion in corporate welfare for “defense” is honky dory. Jebus X, this country’s priotities are topsy turvy.

Well said, Polly. 🙂

Is that if the President was the only problem, then he could have been impeached and removed from office. …except that Pelosi, when running in 2006, made it abundantly clear that impeachment was “off the table”.

Somewhat true. I can understand it politically. Pelosi and the Dems could have impeached on a party-line vote, but the Senate would not have the votes to remove. The Republicans tried this on Clinton and he came out smelling like roses. Perhaps, Pelosi felt this was too big of a risk to take. Still, on a courage level, it’s pretty shameful…after all, if you’re always taking into account the next presidential election while trying to make big decisions, you’re more of a coach than a leader (not that you can’t be both).

Well then screw them. What is the point of that branch of the goverment if they just roll over for whoever is president?

I agree…I was a strong Green Party supporter until about 2002 for those same reasons. Yet, I’ll vote (and volunteer) for the Dems in November. I’d still rather see Ralph be President, but I guess I’ve become a bit more practical as I get a little bit older.

cautious

The Republicans tried this on Clinton and he came out smelling like roses.

Sometimes, in my deeply cynical heart, I wonder if the GOP impeachment of Clinton happened so that the impeachment process would be tarnished so badly that the next President could get away with anything and not have to fear any repercussions.

Being from an emerging “purple state” (Virginia) you can be sure that this atheist is going to vote for “O” for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with me being an atheist.

cautious said,
…I wonder if the GOP impeachment of Clinton happened so that the impeachment process would be tarnished so badly that the next President could get away with anything and not have to fear any repercussions.

I don’t think that was planned. but that is exactly what happened.

John

Why is it that most Libertarians I meet, whether in real life or online, always come across as borderline paranoid?

Libertarians are paranoid, because we love our freedom. We love working hard to achieve our own victories and seeing the spoils of our winnings. I make good money, and I’ll donate it to various causes that I see fit. The moment that another man tells me I HAVE to give my money to another person, whether that be a drug addled homeless junkie, or a family that has fallen upon hard times, I get upset.

Obama recently said he wanted to increase taxes on the rich because they have money the don’t need. As soon as I hear that, warning bells go off. Who the hell determines how much money I need other than myself?

Is McCain better? Not really. He wants to steal my money the same as everyone else. I would never praise either, and I’ll never be happy with either.

The moment you say it’s acceptable to steal another man’s property for “the greater good”, you are a thief. Plain and simple. Is that paranoia? Or is it just a higher standard of living than the common begger?

cautious

Libertarians are paranoid, because we love our freedom.

So, in order to be part of civilization, what freedoms are you willing to give up?

Because apparently you have decided that “freedom from taxation” is one you are not willing to give up, so…what are you willing to sacrifice?

The moment that another man tells me I HAVE to give my money to another person, whether that be a drug addled homeless junkie, or a family that has fallen upon hard times, I get upset.

I get sad because its depressing that in a country over-burdened with goods, that there are people who go without their basic needs.

This is why I can’t be a libertarian 🙁

John

I think you might have missed my comment where I said I give to charities. 🙂 I’m not against giving or helping others in any way. I’m just saying it should be a choice. An organization should say to me, “We’d like you to help, and here are the reasons why” as opposed “We demand that you give us your money or we’ll throw you in prison.” It’s a subtle difference, but I consider it an important one.

If you’re so willing to throw your money towards the greater good, why stop at your standard tax rate? If you honestly believe that the government can better spend your money by giving it to those in more need, why not give them everything? Let them tell you how much you need?

Spurs Fan

The moment you say it’s acceptable to steal another man’s property for “the greater good”, you are a thief. Plain and simple. Is that paranoia? Or is it just a higher standard of living than the common begger?

John,

I’m not sure if voting for leaders who then raise taxes (who could then be voted out) would qualify here. Seems to be a very “broad” definition of stealing.

But, let’s pretend you’re right and things went your way. Be prepared to hire your own fire department in case your house catches fire. After all, our taxes go to the FD for the common good for putting out fires. Whatever. Just plain-old stealing is what it is. Also, I hope you have good personal security, because you will no longer benefit from a “common good” local police force nor state or national military. Those cops and soldiers just benefit from our government’s theft…how dare they protect us all equally? Who do they think they are? Public education for all? Please…that’s just stealing. Let people who want an education pay for their own schooling. Like they do in sub-Saharan Africa where things are so much better and more free. Finally, I hope you’re ready to save up some money for driving. Because every road you drive on will be owned by someone else. Left turn, pay a fee, right turn, pay a fee. Down with the commies and their “roads for the common good”.

Damn thieves.

John

You’re entirely right that we vote the people in that elect to raise taxes. That’s why I do whatever is in my power to raise awareness of others and try to bring them over to my cause.

I like that you brought up the three areas that government actually has a place. Yes, fire and police departments are important. I can go with that. You suspiciously left off, however, all the programs where the government dolls out money without compensation. The police and fire department provide a service. People on welfare do not. People on medicare and social security do not.

And I’ll be long dead in the ground before I let the government educate my children in a government school. Privatized education is the only way to go.

Libertarians are paranoid, because we love our freedom. We love working hard to achieve our own victories and seeing the spoils of our winnings.

This is exactly where libertarians go wrong – you fail to realize how many of your “own victories” were assisted by the benefits you’ve received from a government that works for the common good. It goes way beyond police, fire and military (or even schools).

Rather than listing examples of what I mean, let me just repost something that I found online a while ago and posted at my blog:

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals running our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

While I’m happy to agree that privileged white people calling black people “racist” goes beyond unseemly all the way to ugly, my question is for Kate: are you suggesting we don’t need a wartime consigliere?

I’m for Hillary as Senate Majority Leader rather than VP, but we absolutely do need some fighters, and we need them soon.

Pam had an article a few days ago where she and her commenters had some great VP choices. I kind of like Sebelius.